-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 269
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Server Object host field compatibility with protocols #1016
Comments
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴 It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation. There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model. Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here. Thank you for your patience ❤️ |
Isn't it one of these cases where a subprotocol would work? For instance: asyncapi: 3.0.0
info:
title: Test
version: 0.1.0
servers:
production1:
host: 'my-ccdt-json-file/'
protocol: ibmmq+http
production2:
host: 'myccdt.json/'
protocol: ibmmq+file To me, this is similar (if not the same) as with WebSocket + MQTT/STOMP/others. We should probably define the meaning of this structure |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴 It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation. There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model. Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here. Thank you for your patience ❤️ |
Recently we got a question in our Slack regarding a particularity on ibmqp binding. The question lead to checking that specifying a CCDT connection file should be possible in v3:
As you can see, the
host
includes the protocol converting it to a URL, something I understand not expected in v3 or even somehow illegal. The URL in rendered docs look like ibmmq://http://my-ccdt-json-file/ and ibmmq://file://myccdt.json/ respectively.The question is, should a URL be allowed as a value for the
host
field? The spec doesn't mention anything about. Not even a "thehost
field should not be a URL".Whatever direction we take, we should clarify what the host is expected or not to include.
Slack thread: https://asyncapi.slack.com/archives/C0230UAM6R3/p1706705627052239
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: